[aclug-L] Re: ACLUG

[Michael Moore <mrmoore@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom Hull wrote:

>Don't really have time to go another round on this, but I do want to get
>a couple more things out. The main one is that I had been thinking of
>meetings as presentations/lectures, which is of course not the only way
>to think of them. I think it was Bruce Alderman who suggested that they
>should really be meetings, which involve a lot more give-and-take among
>participants, rather than presenter-giving/audience-taking. The fact is,
>there are lots of different kinds of get-togethers, each with its own
>set of goals, expectations, requirements, etc., but the real important
>thing is to recognize which one you're trying to do, and do a better job
>of it than we've been seeing.
>
>Just to spell this out a bit, presentations in order to be successful
>have to be good, which is hard to do, so one thing that implies is to
>do them less frequently (I suggested monthly, which actually seems to
>be the norm for LUGs AFAIK). Meetings are not so hard, and probably
>benefit from greater frequency (up to a point). On the other hand, one
>thing you need with a meeting is someone who can keep the ball rolling.
>Also, meetings with more than about six people tend to dehomogenize --
>separate into active and passive people, and you need someone who can
>stir that up every now and then.
>
>Another thing I was thinking of (without really getting into it) was
>bringing in guest lecturers. That might be a separate effort, and
>might be something WSU affiliation could fund.
>
>Dale W Hodge wrote:
>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx]On
>>>Behalf Of Tom Hull
>>>
>>>Better to adjust the format so you don't need to find another Goerzen,
>>>than just hang onto a format that isn't working.
>>>
>>But what would that format look like?
>>
>
>Could be no Q&A period. Could require Q to be submitted ahead of time,
>so someone could have Q already parsed and A in hand.
>
>>We've also talked about having a new user group and an advanced group. But 
>>we've
>>always felt there wasn't enough 'help' to go around.
>>
>
>I've never liked this idea. For one thing, new users need experts to guide
>them; for another, nobody's an expert in everything.
>
>Also, I'm more concerned about attracting relative experts than newbies,
>because they raise the quality and value of the whole group.
>
Okay, Tom, that one hurt . ;-)   Let's take a look at this one for a 
moment.  There is aways a some degree of selfishness in all belonging to 
any group.  We all belong to share information and in the process we 
learn.  I understand you would like to see relative experts becuase you 
could immediately gain from their knowledge.  But, what would attract 
experts to a group if they didn't have much to gain.  In the same 
respect a newbie shouldn't bug the heck out of the experts in order to 
gain knowledge.  The newbie can gain knowledge by just participating in 
the group functions...(and lot of reading).  But, the newbie also needs 
to feel welcomed.

I could understand attracting experts if you only had a discussion list. 
 But, in running a local group such as this then there is a definite 
need to have a balance of newbie users, intermediate users and expert users.

It's like in a business, if all you had were experts than not much would 
get done.  Do you think the experts would want the do the mondain tasks 
that the new hires does?
Those type of beginners task would bore the expert, plus the business 
wouldn't be utilizing the experts skills.

In a business the experts spend the majority of their time solving the 
complicated tasks.  The intermediate spends a small part of their time 
on complex tasks, a large part of their time on intermediate tasks and a 
small part of their time on simple tasks.  The Beginner spends the major 
of their time on simple tasks that usually the intermediate gave them to 
do.  

Beginner - these simple tasks are things that have to be done for the 
business to be successfull and are things that the intermediate and 
expert don't have time to do.  If the Begineer whats to learn and pays 
attention they can learn a lot without being a nuciance to the 
Intermediate or the Expert.

There needs to be a balance of all three skill levels participating.  If 
you completely lose participation of one of the skill levels then you 
start to run into problems.

Which is what I expect is happen to this group.  It looks like only a 
few people from one skill level is having to do the majority of the 
work.  And I can certainly understand how frustrating that can be.

Look at it another way, the more people you attract to the group and the 
more attactive participates you have then less each person would have to 
do to maintain a level result.


Instead of thinking how a newbie would hender the group, try and think 
of how a newbie could help the group.  Almost everybody has some 
perticular skills that could an be utilized to benefit the group.

Granted a newbie, as in anything, can be a pain for awhile.  There is 
always that learning curve.

~Mike -)

>>>> would favor 1 topic meeting and 1 "social" meeting.
>>>>
>>>I don't know what you mean by a "social" meeting. There could be
>>>different types of meetings/events, especially if one need not get
>>>involved in all of them.
>>>
>>By social meeting, I mean something like our "pizza parties".  Where a group 
>>of
>>us get together and talk over whatever.
>>
>
>I've been to a couple of "pizza parties" -- I think they might work
>better if they could break up into smaller groups, maybe have theme
>tables and let people wander where they want. I don't think this is
>easy at a commercial restaurant, but pizza transports well.
>
>>Most presentations only run an hour anyway. We could do announcements last, 
>>but
>>then no one would stay to hear them. :-)
>>
>
>Announcements should be at the beginning, but they need to be worked
>ahead of time and kept short and sweet. If you need to thrash them
>out democratically, do that on-line, ahead of time (or schedule a
>"town hall meeting").
>
>>>Maybe different mailers handle this differently, but if I want to
>>>reply to a post privately (which I sometimes do), setting reply-to
>>>to the list means I have to retype the sender's address. Doing it
>>>the other way around means all I have to do is choose between my
>>>"Reply" and "Reply All" buttons (then delete the sender, but that's
>>>easier than typing the sender in).
>>>
>>Yeah, but I would bet that most people would just hit the reply button and 
>>we'd
>>never see the information on the list.
>>
>
>Then (if it matters) they'll have to resend; eventually they'll learn.
>
>>>If you don't do this, as the list grows we all get swamped with
>>>useless replies, and/or people don't bother to respond for fear
>>>of burdening the list (which you receive back, and gets logged)
>>>where an easy private reply would be done. Trying to force all
>>>replies back to the list is wasteful and/or a nuisance. Almost
>>>all of the mail lists that I subscribe to work that way. This
>>>leaves it up to the individual to decide whether any give post
>>>is of interest to the list, which is the way it should be.
>>>
>>I've seen it done both ways, and I don't have a problem with either. In many
>>ways I prefer it this way. Otherwise a lot of discussions would likely end up
>>off list.
>>
>
>You want the low-grade, non-general-interest discussions off list.
>



-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi